Chapter 2 The Strategic Alignment Process

Chapter 2 The Strategic Alignment Process In a dynamic environment, a new management philosophy is required, one with a recipe for dealing with complexity and creating a learning organization which can swiftly make decisions and is agile enough to implement and execute what was decided. As indicated in the previous chapter, a couple of obstacles have to be overcome. Independent of the industry and the specific strategy, which may change as circumstances require, a competitive advantage on the meta level is to prepare the organization with the capacity to quickly align with new strategies faster than the competition, creating an adaptable, agile, and flexible learning organization. The core skills required will be: 1. Recognizing relevant changes, 2. Developing a capability to predict the impact of external changes on the organization, 3. Measuring, analyzing, and finally, understanding the direct and indirect effects of initiatives on the performance of the organization, 4. Decision making without unnecessary delay, and 5. Executing swiftly what was decided. Following this management process helps to develop the capacity to survive in turbulent times and, if this process is performed well, it is a sustainable foundation to establish a competitive advantage and maximum value creation. As displayed in Fig. 2.1, an effective strategy execution does not only depend on a well developed strategy, but also requires the complete organization to be aligned with this strategy. What is it that managers actually need to do to effectively execute their strategy? Obviously, they need to have a clearly-defined strategy in the first place: this is the core, the foundation for their business success. What else matters? The challenges of strategy execution were already discussed in Sect. 1.3. I have developed a model called the World of Strategic Business Intelligence to visualize the most relevant aspects for an effective strategy execution, with strategy being the core. B. Heesen, Effective Strategy Execution, Management for Professionals, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-19205-0_2, # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012 21

22 2 The Strategic Alignment Process strat-e-gy pan of action to achieve a particular goal ef-fec-tive adequate to accomplish a purpose strat-e-gy pan of action to achieve a particular goal ex-e-cu-tion a-lign-ment an adjustment of components for coordinated functioning the act of executing Fig. 2.1 Effective strategy execution (#Bernd Heesen/Prescient. Used with permission) 2.1 World of Strategic Business Intelligence The World of Strategic Business Intelligence (see Fig. 2.2) allows an inside perspective on what matters most. Taking a superficial look at what is visible on the surface is often not sufficient to understand how a business operates and performs. I separated two perspectives which co-exist in organizations, the Business-Perspective and the IT-Perspective. Together, they address the urgent challenges of an effective strategy execution. The business perspective covers the hurdles discussed in Sect. 1.3.1 as well as Sect. 1.3.2, while the information technology perspective deals with the issues described in Sect. 1.3.3. The arrows outline the dependencies of the different layers in the World of Strategic Business Intelligence, recommending the correct sequence in which strategy execution should be managed. Starting with the strategy and keeping in mind that you can t manage what you can t measure, the logical next step is to define performance indicators and establish strategic objectives, which are measurable. There is no point, though, in defining objectives if they are not measured. For that purpose, you need data. Because data can originate from many different sources and be in different formats, the data needs to be integrated and harmonized in so-called information models supported by an IT infrastructure, which I will present in Chap. 3. There is no benefit of collecting information if it is not utilized. Value creation, therefore, lies in communicating the relevant information to the respective stakeholders. Stakeholders from the business perspective include groups like customers, investors, business partners, and employees with responsibility for the effective execution of specific internal operations. Information needs differ

2.1 World of Strategic Business Intelligence 23 Fig. 2.2 World of strategic business intelligence (#Bernd Heesen/Prescient. Used with permission) significantly and should be assessed early in the process since the availability of the information depends on suitable information models and data sources. This World of Strategic Business Intelligence visualizes the networks of interdependencies as typical for cybernetic models, something lacking in some of the literature focusing only on the business perspective or only on the information technology perspective. It illustrates the dependency of business on data, information models, and communication, traditional as well as new, and innovative communication channels or technologies. It also shows that the utilized performance indicators depend on the information needs of the stakeholders on one side, but also depend on the intended strategy. Since you can t measure what you can t describe, information models can only be developed based on a precise definition and description of performance indicators. How to do this properly will be explained in Sect. 3.2. Information can only be communicated if the facts are available, which, in turn, requires the existence of respective information models. Effective communication needs to match the needs of the information recipients, called stakeholders in the model. How often is information made available, but is of little use? The problem is not that the management receives too little information, most managers actually suffer from information overload. The challenge is to minimize the quantity of information while still providing the relevant information in time, and with reliability and quality that meets the demand. Certainly, this model can be considered complex. By breaking it down into two perspectives and several layers, while making sure to focus on the dependencies, this model will hopefully help you to lay the foundation for an effective strategy execution in your organization by aligning all organizational efforts.

24 2 The Strategic Alignment Process What is the value of a model or a concept if it can t be applied? I do not want to leave my readers at this point. Now that I have explained the issues at hand, I intend to share how to apply it with the help of the following roadmap, called the Strategic Alignment Process. The main activities of the Strategic Alignment Process are: Formulate your strategy. Identify stakeholder groups and their information needs. Establish meaningful key performance indicators, and understand cause and effect linkages or correlations between key performance indicators (e.g., leading indicators affecting lagging indicators, balancing, or reinforcing loops). Measure and collect performance relevant information. This typically includes extracting data from different source systems, transforming the data according to an established standard, e.g., measuring weight in kg or pound, and financial values in specific currencies. Information models should make the information available so it can be easily retrieved and communicated, e.g., aggregating frequently used performance indicators in data marts. Select the appropriate communication channels, e.g., alerts, dashboards, broadcasting agents, to fulfill the information needs of all stakeholders. This enables to analyze the performance of all stakeholders, to make appropriate decisions to improve performance, and to act, based on the decisions made. In the following, the tasks involved shall be described in more detail, starting with the business perspective and followed by the information technology perspective. 2.1.1 Business Perspective In their Harvard Business Review article How Strategy shapes structure, Kim and Mauborgne (2009) outline the three management tasks as attracting buyers with a convincing value proposition, motivating employees to help execute the organization s strategy, and to be profitable. They state that the key to sustainable success is to align these three tasks. Having a solid value proposition and profit orientation might create short term success, but, if there is no adequate people proposition, this may not be sustainable. On the other hand, motivating employees and having an attractive value proposition without a focus on profitability will also not be sustainable. What is needed is a holistic perspective and a management that understands balancing many different needs. Using the model of the World of Strategic Business Intelligence, a key task is to understand who the stakeholders involved in creating value are and how to fulfill their respective expectations, and deal with conflict of interest between these groups. One of the core questions the management should answer is what each of these stakeholders actually contributes to the success of the organization. Consequently, those stakeholders contributing the most need to be treated with extra care. While investors might have an interest in short term profitability by leveraging

2.1 World of Strategic Business Intelligence 25 lower cost labor abroad, the employees might be interested in a stable employment opportunity rather than compromising short term profitability to secure their work. The most critical stakeholders for most organizations are the customers, investors, regulators, employees, and suppliers (Neely, Adams, & Kennerley, 2002). Customers help to increase rofit. They also provide valuable feedback for product and service improvements. In return, they expect high quality products and services for the lowest price possible, and a convenient purchasing and service experience. Investors providing capital or credit expect a maximum return on capital. Regulators contribute a legal framework and infrastructure, while expecting compliance with the law, including financial contribution in the form of taxes. Employees contribute their knowledge and loyalty, and expect personal development, fair compensation, and loyalty from their organizations. Suppliers contribute their services and products on which an organization may depend, and expect revenue and profit in return. In all of these stakeholder relationships, trust is an important ingredient since both parties have expectations of their interests being fulfilled if they contribute to their part of the bargain. This network of relationships with their respective expectations, which need to be managed, contains a good amount of complexity. Given the philosophy that you can only manage what can be measured, it is imperative that performance is measured related to what each individual stakeholder contributes and what the organization returns. Section 3.2 will describe key performance indicators related to different stakeholders. To establish business performance goals related to each of the stakeholders allows to focus attention on the most critical activities. Measuring the performance also increases the visibility of positive or negative developments, and deviations from the planned performance. This increases the communication between different actors in a value chain, and can lead to team creativity and problem solving. When deviations from the target performance occurs, they can stimulate two different reflections. If the performance goals are not met, it might be debated as to which corrective actions should be taken to achieve the target. This feedback loop would help to improve the strategy execution. Alternatively, not meeting the objectives might lead to a reflection of whether the original target was realistic or if it should be adjusted. It might be even discussed if the key performance indicators used to define the business goals might be inappropriate and which other performance measures may be better suited. This could potentially lead to the establishment of new strategic objectives for the organization. The corporate dialog which happens in this process would be even more substantial since it questions the validity of the strategic objectives. It is an example of a feedback loop on the meta-level. I will refer to this later in Chap. 3 as part of the Preparation for Strategy Execution. An example where a single performance measure might be inadequate is often found in sales, when sales representatives receive a bonus based on sales without considering the cost associated with the sales. In the end, a product or service sold may have a negative contribution to the organization if the cost is higher than sales. An example where this can be of significant importance are service contracts based on a fixed price. But why is revenue such a widely used measure for sales? It is

26 2 The Strategic Alignment Process much easier to measure at the end of an accounting period. In the case of the fixed price service contract mentioned above, if the services are performed over a period of 9 months, the bottom line contribution can only be measured after project completion. If the bonus is measured based on quarterly or annual performance, sales representatives might work hard to get the signatures under the contract, either in the current period or delay it until the beginning of the next period. Why: they play games with the numbers and try to optimize their bonus, because in non-linear bonus programs, e.g., incremental bonus programs, additional recognized revenue leads to different payouts. This kind of playing with numbers is not limited to sales representatives but can happen wherever performance is measured and where individuals benefit from manipulating numbers. These incentives for individual organizational members are not necessarily in line with organizational goals, they may actually be conflicting. Who does not know the example where spending is increased at year end in order to use the budget? In many organizations, not spending the budget in 1 year can lead to a reduced budget for the coming year. Since performance measurement in the above cases can lead to dysfunctional behavior, performance measures need to be designed with care. In his book Performance leadership, Buytendijk (2009) outlines some of the most relevant, unintended, negative effects of performance measurement as: Tunnel vision: Focusing on what is easy to measure instead of what is important. Measure fixation: Trying to change definitions to make the numbers look better. Misrepresentation: Cheating the system. Ossification: Presenting outdated information. Gaming: Underachieving, once targets have been made. Misinterpretation: Incorrect or incomplete interpretation of the metrics. Suboptimization: Using corporate resources to optimize one s own targets, instead of corporate objectives. Myopia: Focusing on the short-term quick wins, instead of longer-term strategic objectives. Buytendijk uses the example of a railway organization to explain the problem of measure fixation. After recognizing that a higher than planned percentage of trains either arrived late or left late compared to the planned time, they adjusted the margin. If deviating from the planned time by 1 min was previously recognized as not on time, the margin was now adjusted to be 2 min. Consequently, the number of trains reported late could be significantly reduced despite the fact that nothing in the actual performance had changed. To avoid any misrepresentation and misinterpretation, it is critical to create a precise definition for each performance indicator, including the way it is calculated. Changes in this foundation for the reporting needs to be made transparent to all those working with these indicators. Where this is not secured, a manipulation is possible without it being recognized easily. Why even care about establishing a measurement system if it is so complex and comes with these potential negative effects? Companies with established measurement systems are found to be more successful than those not utilizing performance measurement systems as comprehensively. One of the key benefits of performance

2.1 World of Strategic Business Intelligence 27 measures certainly is their positive effect on coordination and alignment of the organizational efforts, enabling harmonization of different activities. The other benefit is fostering cooperation from all those that are responsible for the execution of the strategy, including all employees, investors, and business partners, even if they have divergent objectives. One theory describing the problem of cooperation is the Principal Agent Theory (Grant, 2010), which deals with the problem that can arise when an agent fulfils a contract to act on behalf of a principal. The problem of the principal occurs if the agent does not act in the principal s interest, but in his own interest. The major cooperation problem within the organization is between the owners and the managers, and between managers and their subordinates throughout the hierarchy. Solutions to minimize the problem include establishing goals and monitoring performance or creating incentive systems to align the individual with the organizational objectives. Conflicts may still arise on this level or between organizational subunits with different goals. For example, sales may be trying to sell at the lowest price to be competitive, and marketing may be commencing a new expensive marketing campaign for a new product line intended to go on the market in the next quarter. At the same time, the finance department worries about discounts reducing the profitability and investments in marketing having a negative impact on the quarterly financial results for the current quarter. The list of potential conflicts of interest seems endless. Have you experienced those or similar conflicts in your organization? This leads us to the next question: how to achieve an improved alignment of goals within an organization and, consequently, a better cooperation between the actors? Based on the differentiation of first-order control and second-order control introduced in Sect. 1.1, established mechanisms are: First-order controls Direction and rules: Supervisors provide orders and directions to their subordinates. Control: Supervision of the behavior and performance of subordinates in connection with reinforcement via performance incentives or sanctions. Second-order controls Shared values and objectives: Ideally there is no conflict of interest between principal and agent and they share a common interest, purpose and values. Creating a shared organizational culture is the foundation for this to happen. Sharing and explaining the strategy to employees or involving them in the strategy creation process within their organizational unit allows them to identify with the organization. Once they understand their contribution to the whole, they can more effectively use their initiative and skills to contribute. Once this is reached, this mechanism is self regulating. Routines: If tasks are performed repeatedly and frequently over time, the involved individuals develop routines to effectively coordinate their activities. This coordination is fostered by the actors being familiar with

28 2 The Strategic Alignment Process their contribution in the overall value creation process. These routines provide direction without requiring much management attention. Performance incentives and sanctions: They link rewards to performance and, thereby, reduce the need for control from above. The above mentioned first-order controls require direct involvement of the supervisor in the organizational structure, while the second-order controls are self-steering mechanisms. The first-order controls rely on the existence of a hierarchy of command and control to create vertical alignment. Since the cost for coordination is manifest in the number of managers needed to steer and control a system, significant efforts have been made in many organizations to remove layers of the hierarchy and to leverage partitioned subsystems with more autonomy. The vertical alignment can be created based on first-order controls but it is far more difficult to use those to create horizontal alignment along the value change. An efficient horizontal coordination can often not be directed from above as it requires an insight into the details of the process organization, which is mainly developed by those directly executing the tasks. Since processes cross the borders of organizational units, the respective supervisors might have departmental interests which are in conflict with each other. Direction from above might even lead to inefficiencies in process execution. This is where the second-order controls can help to solve business problems pragmatically by those responsible for the process execution. These individuals often have superior knowledge about the processes they execute and can make informed recommendations on how to improve them. Increased information availability can facilitate improved decision-making by these individuals on the operational level as well as on the management level. Selfsteering as well as horizontal and vertical alignment can be greatly enhanced by information technology. Let us focus on the IT perspective to understand exactly how information technology can contribute. 2.1.2 IT Perspective Measurement-managed organizations are more successful, and more than half of the organizations don t have a consistently updated enterprise-wide analytical capability. Two-thirds believe that they need to improve their analytical capability. Analytical capability is important to support managers with the right information at the time when they need it. It seems that more information is better for management. But is this really true? No; the quality of a decision depends not so much on how much data is supplied than on the relevant information being provided. Managers might actually suffer as much from information overload, including E-mails, as they lack access to critical information when needed. Having an effective strategy execution in mind, it is obvious that only the required facts should be provided to the information recipients, based on their articulated needs.

2.1 World of Strategic Business Intelligence 29 Data in itself carries no value. It is only when information, which is based on data, is requested and used that it creates benefits for the recipient. This should be the core philosophy and understanding. Basically, information technology is meant to add more benefits than create costs, thereby adding value. Maximizing this value creation is the task at hand. The IT perspective of the World of Strategic Business Intelligence therefore covers a set of three layers which help to understand how value can be created based on data, always keeping the information recipients in mind, along with their specific information needs. The three layers are: data, information models, and communication. Together these three layers allow to design an infrastructure which enables the desired analytical capability and add value. The core of an appropriate information technology solution consists of data. This data must be collected or acquired, and stored, and made available for analytical applications. Some of the data which is available might not be needed for reporting. Other data might be needed but stored in a format which does not allow to readily use it for reporting. Reasons can be manifold. One example might be revenue data from different countries stored in the local currency while management in the headquarters wants to have it converted into a global reporting currency for some reports and utilizing the local currency for some country specific reporting. Questions arise: Which exchange rate should be used to convert the currencies? Should the date of the sales transaction be used, the rate at the end of the reporting period, or the rate at the time the report is generated? Another example where data is stored but not readily usable for reporting is when the weight of products sold is available in pounds for the United States subsidiary, and in kg for the German subsidiary. In order to report the weight of global total sales, the data will need to be converted into one unit. Should standard reports use a corporate standard unit or should the user who creates the report have the choice to pick the unit used from pound, g, kg and many others? Field lengths or the coding of information can also differ, based on the data source. Running a global headcount report by gender can be difficult in a global enterprise using a heterogeneous information technology infrastructure. In Mexico they might record a single digit number using 0 representing female and 1 representing male. Reports in Mexico work perfectly. Unfortunately, the subsidiary in Spain uses a single digit coding using 1 for female and 0 for male, exactly the opposite from Mexico. Running a global headcount report by gender will not work without prior transformation of the data to a unique standard worldwide. Other countries might even use a character field instead of a single digit field with f for female and m representing male and different characters will be used in the Chinese subsidiary system. Clearly, something needs to be done before reporting across locations can be done properly. Access to the data alone will not be sufficient. What is needed to address the above mentioned questions and issues? The information needs of all stakeholders have to be understood. What information do they need, what is the format, the layout, the preferred communication channel, and how frequently should data be updated and distributed? These and more questions should be answered by performing a requirements analysis.

30 2 The Strategic Alignment Process The relevant stakeholders who rely on analytics to make their business decisions should be contacted and asked what kind of information they need, and how they would like to access it, e.g., which communication channel they prefer. A simple approach to gather this relevant information might be the question: who needs what, when, where, and why. Primary communication channels, those where the individual has direct access to the facts, can be printed reports, access to a list of predesigned reports or to a dashboard, allowing the user to locate the relevant information via navigation operations. Another communication channel is broadcasting which allows users to subscribe or unsubscribe to recipient lists for specific information. This is specifically beneficial for periodic reports, which can automatically be delivered via E-mail as soon as they become available or are updated. Further communication channels are mobile devices or file access, e.g., to use established reporting tools like Excel. A comprehensive list of these primary communication channels is covered in Sect. 3.3. Obviously individuals who have direct access to facts via these primary communication channels, forward or communicate this information to additional information recipients via phone, in presentations, meetings, or conversations. These secondary communication channels are essential but they all critically depend on at least one person having access to the primary source. Ideally all decision makers can use a primary communication channel to avoid any delay. We have discussed the value of timely information in Sect. 1.2. The final result of the requirements analysis is a list of information recipients and their detailed information needs. In an ideal world, all information needs can be fulfilled. Unfortunately, the fulfillment of the information needs typically requires preparation. First, one needs to find out if the needed information is available, where, and in which format. Once the information sources are located, the information models can be designed reflecting the appropriate granularity of data, aggregation or navigation needs. Granularity describes the level of detail in which data is available for reporting, e.g., answering the question as to whether it will be sufficient to provide monthly revenue numbers or if it needs to be accessible by week, day, or even hour or minute? Aggregation helps to improve the performance of the reporting by calculating frequently-used performance indicators once for all users accessing this information later. Navigation allows to slice, dice, drill-down, roll-up or sort data depending on the user needs. While theoretically any navigation is possible, performance needs to be optimized, which requires establishing indexes for fast access for those navigation options frequently used. Once the infrastructure to store this information is established, the data can be extracted from the source systems, transformed into the desired format and loaded in appropriate intervals into a so-called data warehouse or other destinations to fulfill the reporting needs. How exactly to design data models, a data warehouse and how to implement a business intelligence infrastructure will be covered in Sect. 3.3. What are the typical information needs that should be fulfilled and supported by information technology? Managers typically want to know the current level of performance in comparison to a planned or past performance or benchmarks of similar business units within the organization, competitors or known best practices.

2.1 World of Strategic Business Intelligence 31 Performance levels might be displayed following a stoplight metaphor using colorcoding with green, yellow and red, in table-format, as chart, map, dashboard or in any other format. One of the most important processes in measurement-managed organizations is establishing the performance targets during the annual budgeting and planning process. The purpose of the budgeting process is the optimal resource allocation for maximum value creation. The budgeting and planning processes typically rely on a solid understanding of past performance and benchmarks as well as trends, which display the performance over time. Trends can signal a declining, improving or constant level of performance. Comparisons as well as trends are based on data which stimulates a discussion about the potential causes for the performance, allowing an exchange of creative ideas on how to reduce or eliminate negative causes and reinforce positive ones. Based on an improved understanding of the current situation and potential initiatives that possibly help to improve performance, targets for the upcoming business periods can be determined. Information systems therefore should support at least the following two main tasks: target performance setting (Planning/Budgeting) and performance monitoring (Reporting). Both tasks are core elements of the strategy execution cycle: act, analyze, decide. Performance monitoring enables an analysis of the current situation. The analysis typically leads to decisions which can be either the setting or adjustment of performance targets or deciding which corrective action to take. The last step left in the strategy execution cycle is to act in accordance with the decisions, e.g., by actually taking the corrective action. An issue related to information not discussed yet is, who should have the privilege to access the information, especially direct access to the primary information channels? Data needs to be protected for many understandable legal and business reasons. There is no point though in developing an information repository which may be costly and then limiting its potential by establishing access barriers, or lacking suitable communication channels to actually benefit from the available information. A tragic example where an insufficient information supply led to many deaths was the Indian Ocean Tsunami, which occurred in December 2004. Tsunamis cannot be avoided, but the resulting damages they cause can be reduced significantly. As the UNESCO stated in their assessment in January 2005 about the consequences of a not-properly-working tsunami warning system: Had such a system existed on 26 December, experts believe, scores of thousands of lives might have been saved from the giant waves that killed more than 200,000 people in a dozen Indian Ocean countries, since they would have been given up to several hours to flee to higher ground before the tsunami struck (Adkins, 2006, p. 7). What had happened? NOAA (2004), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, an agency of the United States Department of Commerce, reported about the Tsunami in their news online on December 29th 2004, just 3 days after the occurrence. The NOAA scientists at the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii received a seismic signal of the massive 9.0 undersea earthquake off the west coast of Northern Sumatra in Indonesia. This signal was sent by one of hundreds of tsunami

32 2 The Strategic Alignment Process buoys in the ocean detecting a centimeter s difference in ocean height. They issued a bulletin indicating that there would be no threat of a tsunami to Hawaii and the west coast of North America and coasts in the Pacific Basin. They then notified other countries of the possibility of a tsunami. There were no buoys placed in the Indian Ocean in 2004 and therefore the Pacific Basin tsunami warning system did not detect the tsunami, despite the fact that the tsunami already raced across the ocean at speeds up to 500 mph. Below is the timeline of events for December 25th and 26th reported by the NOAA Tsunami Warning Center (NOAA, 2004), Note: Items in brackets marked as waiting further verification at the time of publication on December 29th 2004: December 25, 2004, 2:59 p.m.: The rupture of the great earthquake begins in the Indian Ocean off NW Sumatra, Indonesia. 3:07 p.m.: Initial seismic signals from the earthquake trigger alarms at the NOAA Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) in Hawaii. 3:10 p.m.: PTWC issues a message to other observatories in the Pacific with preliminary earthquake parameters. Several geophysical observatories, including PTWC, initially underestimated the size as around a magnitude 8.0. 3:14 p.m.: PTWC issues a Tsunami Information Bulletin providing information on the earthquake and stating there is no tsunami threat to Pacific coasts. It is a text message distributed by multiple means to participants of the Tsunami Warning System in the Pacific. PTWC also advises the following offices by telephone as part of its standard operating procedure: (1) Hawaii Civil Defense, (2) Pacific Command (PACOM) of U.S. Military Forces, (3) U.S. Navy-Hawaii Region, and (4) International Tsunami Information Center. 3:15 p.m.: Tsunami waves begin striking the coasts of northern Sumatra and the Nicobar Islands. 4:04 p.m.: PTWC issues a second Tsunami Information Bulletin to the Pacific revising the earthquake magnitude to 8.5, based on later seismic energy. The bulletin again indicates no tsunami threat to the Pacific, but language is added to advise about the possibility of a tsunami near the epicenter. 4:30 p.m.: PTWC attempts to contact the Australian Bureau of Meteorology to verify they received the bulletin. As their main line was busy, they called Emergency Management Australia instead. EMA indicated Australia was aware of the earthquake. 4:45 p.m.: Tsunami waves begin striking the coasts of Sri Lanka, India and Thailand. 6:21 p.m.: A magnitude 7.1 aftershock occurs. PTWC staff evaluate the earthquake with some difficulty due to its signal being mixed with large seismic waves still active from the main event. No bulletin is issued for this event due to its much smaller size compared to the main shock. 6:30 p.m.: Tsunami waves begin striking the Maldives Islands. 7:12 p.m.: Reuters Internet wire service posts its first story indicating a tsunami has hit Sri Lanka, causing 150 casualties. It also reports 100 tsunami injuries in Thailand.

2.1 World of Strategic Business Intelligence 33 7:25 p.m.: The first data from the Australian National Tidal Center gauge at Cocos Island gives a reading of 0.5 m crest-to-trough. This was the only sea level data in the Indian Ocean available to PTWC. Also at 7:25 p.m.: The Harvard University Seismology Department reports its preliminary Centroid Moment Tensor solution that indicates a magnitude of 8.9 (This was adjusted by Harvard the following day to 9.0). 7:32 p.m.: PTWC issues a message to the Tsunami Bulletin Board that goes by E-mail to international tsunami scientists and organizations. The message reports that, based on the Reuters news wire article, a destructive tele-tsunami was generated by the Sumatra earthquake. 7:55 p.m.: PTWC re-contacts the Australia Bureau of Meteorology and advises it of the increased earthquake magnitude and the 0.5 m reading at Cocos Island. They indicate that while they cannot make any kind of forecast, there is the possibility of destructive tsunami waves on Australia s western coasts. 8:00 p.m.: PTWC re-contacts PACOM to advise of the increased earthquake magnitude and potential tsunami impacts in the western Indian Ocean. 8:15 p.m.: The Australia Bureau of Meteorology calls PTWC to advise they have issued an alert to their western coasts. 9:00 p.m.: PTWC receives a call from a Sri Lanka Navy Commander, inquiring about the potential for further tsunami waves from aftershocks. 9:15 p.m.: The U.S. Ambassador in Sri Lanka calls PTWC to set up a notification point in case of aftershocks with tsunamigenic potential. 9:30 p.m.: The NOAA National Weather Service Pacific Region director reports to PTWC that PACOM has informed him they did not observe a destructive tsunami at Diego Garcia. 10:00 p.m.: The U.S. State Department Operations Center calls PTWC and is advised of the potential threat to the western Indian Ocean and eastern Africa. They agree to set up a conference call with U.S. embassies in the region. 10:15 p.m.: The U.S. State Department Operations Center sets up a conference call with the U.S. embassies at Madagascar and Mauritius. PTWC advises that, based on the size of the earthquake and there being reports of tele-tsunami impacts in the Bay of Bengal, there is the potential threat of a damaging tsunami in the western Indian Ocean. 10:15 p.m.: Tsunami waves have crossed Mauritius and are close to reaching Madagascar. They are also starting to impact the northernmost part of the east coast of Africa. December 26, 2004, 5:36 a.m.: PTWC issues a third tsunami information bulletin indicating that small sea level fluctuations from the Indian Ocean tsunami are being observed in the Pacific Ocean, probably from tsunami energy that passed south of Australia. The NOAA also stated in its report that the need for a tsunami warning program outside the Pacific region had been raised since 1985 with little result. Now, after this tragedy happened, interest quickly rose again. As a consequence, the Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning System (Wikipedia, 2010b), with 25 seismographic

34 2 The Strategic Alignment Process stations relaying information to 26 national tsunami information centers bordering the Indian Ocean, became active in June 2006. The early warning system is now improved with additional key performance indicators being measured and monitored in the Indian Ocean too. The lack of information systems infrastructure clearly contributed to the disaster. How does this apply to business? Clearly, early knowledge of significant events provides more time to take adequate action in business also. Political events like the current crisis in Egypt with President Mubarak having left office, the dramatic effects of terrorist attacks or natural disasters on businesses, the impact of the bankruptcy of major banks or the financial crisis of countries like Greece, or more traditional business news like a radical innovation, deregulation of industries creating new threats and opportunities, discount offers from competitors disturbing the markets, negative bottom line contribution of a product group because substitute products are significantly reducing demand all these can be dealt with more effectively with more time on your hands. Having more time than the competition increases the chances to limit loss or improve profits. But it is not only the measuring and availability of information that leads to success. In the case of the tsunami, those dying in Sri Lanka were hit much later than Indonesia, but still the information did not reach in time, leaving 35,000 dead in Sri Lanka. It is not only the information that is key to success, but the combination of information reaching the relevant recipients via suitable communication channels. Even with officials being informed about a tsunami, one of the problems was the issue of how to reach the individuals on the beach in time. Research performed by the state of Washington in association with the U.S. National Tsunami Mitigation Program (UNESCO, 2005) uncovered that transmitting relevant information may not be sufficient, since a correct interpretation and preparedness to take action are also required. In a study to assess the usefulness of warning messages, they found that despite the dissemination of relevant information, the preparedness to act appropriately was still low-to-moderate because of some accommodating pre-existing beliefs and interpretation of information. They found that they needed to make sure that the provided information (1) was meaningful to the recipients, (2) motivated risk acceptance, (3) led to the adoption of risk reduction behavior, and (4) promotedearly risk mitigation. These and other findings led Mr. Gordon, Directorate General for Humanitarian Aid ECHO, to state the following requirements for establishing sustainable and effective early warning systems (UNESCO, 2005, pp. 8 9): A major problem is the challenge of communication between a largely educated, literate project workforce and a little educated, often illiterate, beneficiary population. Message content must be as simple as possible for the end users. The mass media have a crucial role in assuring wide and effective warning dissemination and awareness raising. Education and training for the media is required. Message delivery systems must be cost effective.

2.2 New Tools and Philosophies for Managers 35 Regarding the issue of false warning, credibility of the message is crucial for project acceptance. An early warning system is dependent upon the sustained investment of all stakeholders at multiple levels before, during, and after completion of the project cycle. An early warning system should not be attempted unless there is genuine grass roots demand for the system. An early warning system should have relevance from the perspective of the enduser: it may address pressing concerns of the community and individual households (rooted in risk to livelihoods rather than threat to life). This is particularly the case for communities vulnerable to low magnitude or low frequency hazards, and which require specific strategic dispensation. Perceived usefulness and effectiveness of a system is indispensable for project acceptance. Acceptance is essential for sustained end-user and system operator ownership. Low cost and technical assistance designs must be used that reflect the degree of sustained budgetary commitment that can realistically be expected from set budgets. Several of these recommendations can be applied in a business context as well. Certainly, the first task is to define and measure what is important. Measurement requires an information technology infrastructure like the buoys in the ocean or IT systems in business, and then the relevant information needs to be communicated quickly. Reliability of the information is critical if the recipients shall be expected to consider the warnings seriously enough to take appropriate action. Obviously, the message content should be easy to understand. This means that information systems should be easy to use. Clearly, the implementation of a new system also requires a perception of usefulness and effectiveness. In a complex business environment, the management rarely finds time to monitor all relevant performance measures. Alerts established, based on individually-defined deviations from expected performance, can be triggered automatically and establish a 247 surveillance, freeing up scarce management time. This may be just one of the benefits of creating a measurementmanaged organization. How can the consequences of business tsunamis be mitigated effectively, and what are the new tools and philosophies available for managers in their organizations to improve the effectiveness of their strategy execution? This question shall be answered in the following section. 2.2 New Tools and Philosophies for Managers We have discussed the challenges of increased speed, the complexity of business in dynamic environments, and the lack of information system support that can be alert to significant events. Managers need new tools and philosophies to be prepared for

36 2 The Strategic Alignment Process the challenges awaiting them. The concepts and technologies for Decision Support Systems have developed and matured. Information technology enabled better supply chain management and administrative tasks using Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) applications since the 1990s and ebusiness has revolutionized many aspects of business since the start of the new millennium. Web 2.0, including social networking, has recently added new opportunities and created new business enterprises like Facebook, which is valued at $50 billion by Goldman Sachs after only 6 years of business operation (CNN, 2011). One innovation based on new and mature information technology capabilities, which can be leveraged to deal with the increased speed and complexity of business, is Business Intelligence. More than 50 years ago, the term Business Intelligence was first introduced by Luhn (1958). About the same time, the concept of Management by Objectives was established by Drucker (Drucker, 2006a) in 1954. The combination of these two landmark concepts is the foundation of a new management philosophy called Management by Objectives 2.0 (MBO 2.0 ). This philosophy can be applied easily by using a new management tool, the Strategic Alignment Remote Control. 2.2.1 Business Intelligence Information systems capabilities have developed significantly over time and can be leveraged to improve strategy execution. The term Decision Support System was established in the late 1960s. Their purpose was to help decision makers in top management to gain access to relevant information using computer systems. This focus of decision support systems specifically for the top management is also reflected in the term Executive Information System, which was widely used in the 1980s. In the 1990s new terms like Data Warehousing and Business Intelligence were becoming more widely used. It was in the year 1958 though that the term Business Intelligence was used for the first time by Luhn (1958) in his article A Business Intelligence System published in the IBM Journal. He envisioned a flexible automated system identifying information needs and disseminating the information efficiently within the organization. His use of the word intelligence was defined in his article as the ability to apprehend the interrelationships of presented facts in such a way as to guide action towards a desired goal (Luhn, 1958, p. 314). Obviously, the technologies and mechanisms available at the time were far from where they are today, but the idea and concept remained. Despite his first mention of the term, Mr. Luhn is not widely credited with it (Information Week, 2008). The invention of the concept occurred 50 years ago, but the real innovation is happening only now. Several factors drive the adoption and implementation of business intelligence in organizations. The Ness Technologies Market Pulse Study on Business Intelligence

2.2 New Tools and Philosophies for Managers 37 (Ness Global Industries, 2010), conducted in 2009, identified the main factors driving business intelligence initiatives as: Better transparency into company data for business planning and decision making (54%). Desire for more insight into business to keep up with raid change (43%). Real-time analysis capabilities (43%). Increased demand from stakeholders for operational efficiency and performance management (42%). Data integration (37%). Early problem detection (29%). Higher standards of corporate governance (28%). Increasing revenue (27%). Reducing data management costs (26%). The expected or already achieved benefits by establishing and utilizing a business intelligence solution were found to be, in order of significance: Improved operational efficiency (84%). Faster dissemination of information throughout the organization (83%). Faster, fact-based decision-making (81%). Enabled corporate performance management (78%). Increased business agility (78%). Early detection of problems (72%). Alignment of organization around consistent set of KPIs (72%). Improved compliance (68%). Identification of new revenue growth opportunities (67%). Improved identification of new business opportunities (63%). The above list indicates that business intelligence is far from just another technology solution for IT fanatics. Instead, it is an innovative solution to help address key management issues. Early decision support systems, developed only with the executives in mind, are now history and have been replaced by the concept of business intelligence, reflecting the information needs at all levels of the organization. Time wasted on searching for information, or the lack of access to relevant information, is an unnecessary waste of time not only for executives but at all levels of the organization. Based on improved data security, and with the availability of solutions to reach all decision makers, the benefit of decision support systems can now be multiplied. The focus of decision support systems on top management would probably have been questioned by Drucker (2001) because his definition of the term executive was based on the concept of the knowledge worker. Drucker asked the question Who is an executive? and provided the answer Every knowledge worker in a modern organization is an executive if, by virtue of his position or knowledge, her or she is responsible for a contribution that materially affects the capacity of the organization to perform and to obtain results (Drucker, 2001, p. 194). He emphasized the relevance of all organizational members contribution to an

38 2 The Strategic Alignment Process effective strategy execution, and considered even individuals as executives in the above sense, if they did not manage anyone else but themselves. As Drucker phrased it: The most subordinate, we now know, may do the same kind of work as the president of the company or the administrator of the government agency, that is, plan, organize, integrate, motivate, and measure. His compass may be quite limited, but within his sphere, he is an executive (Drucker, 2001, p. 196). To underline his argumentation, Drucker cited an interview of a young infantry captain in the Vietnam jungle being asked how he can retain command over his group in such a confused situation. The response of the captain was: Around here, I am only the guy who is responsible. If these men don t know what to do when they run into an enemy in the jungle, I m too far away to tell them. My job is to make sure they know. What they do depends on the situation which only they can judge. The responsibility is always mine, but the decision lies with whoever is on the spot (Drucker, 2001, p. 195). What does this mean for businesses which are experiencing turbulent times and for their managers? The captain understood that his level of direct control and influence was limited, given the complexities, a lack of detailed knowledge of situational aspects, as well as his limited time, which hindered his ability to be involved in all decisions. Managers have very similar constraints. Despite the fact that they are responsible, they rely on knowledge of workers to make independent decisions. While each of these individual decisions may not have the same magnitude as the decisions at higher levels, their accumulated relevance might be at least as high as those at the top, since the number of decisions below the top management are much higher and more frequent. The increasing relevance of knowledge was also described by Drucker as a reason to review management practices. He mentions that very long ago people in higher positions knew what their subordinates were doing because they had been in the job of the subordinates themselves. This experience of the managers created authority and acceptance, since past challenges were similar to the present ones. Today, the present is increasingly different from the past and the future will be even more different in fast changing times. Therefore, past experience from managers might be not only irrelevant but even misleading, if the conditions have changed significantly. In this kind of environment, current knowledge becomes even more relevant and managers need to leverage the competencies of the knowledge workers. The consequence is that decision support is needed on all levels of the organization to improve performance. Independent or interdependent decision-making to align the organizational efforts vertically or horizontally, as mentioned in Sect. 2.1.1, can be greatly enhanced with business intelligence and by applying Management by Objectives. 2.2.2 Management by Objectives 2.0 The late Drucker (2006a) has left a legacy of management knowledge. His book The practice of management, published in 1954, is an example of remarkable

2.2 New Tools and Philosophies for Managers 39 wisdom and foresight. In this legendary work, he introduced the concept of Management by Objectives with the following words: Business performance therefore requires that each job be directed toward the objectives of the whole business. And in particular each manager s job must be focused on the success of the whole. The performance that is expected of the manager must be derived from the performance goals of the business, his results must be measured by the contribution they make to the success of the enterprise (Drucker, 2006a, p. 121). This is a hymn on the value of corporate performance management and the need for alignment for effective strategy execution. The success of measurement-managed companies, as discussed in Sect. 1.3.3, show how this statement did not lose relevance over time. On the contrary, Drucker even identified major barriers to an effective strategy execution. He stated: Management by objectives requires major effort and special instruments. For in the business enterprise managers are not automatically directed toward a common goal. On the contrary, business, by its very nature, contains three powerful factors of misdirection: in the specialized work of most managers; in the hierarchical structure of management; and in the differences in vision and work and the resultant insulation of various levels of management (Drucker, 2006a, p. 122). He further indicated that managers often develop their own empires and might be more concerned with their own or sub-unit s performance than with their contribution to the enterprise. Consequently, a major management challenge to create an effective organization is to create alignment between the individual and subunits goals and the strategic objectives of the enterprise. When are managers effective? Drucker describes that individuals who are most relevant for a manager s effectiveness are those whom managers typically have no direct control over. He stated: They are people in other areas, people who in terms of organization, are sideways. Or they are his superiors. Unless the executive can reach those people, can make his contribution effective for them and in their work, he has no effectiveness at all (Drucker, 2001, p. 198). This indicates the importance of alignment and cooperation with superiors, peers, and subordinate s objectives. What makes them effective is to have a shared overall goal and understanding. Having a well formulated strategy with clearly-defined objectives, including a breakdown with the measurable contribution of each subunit or individual, creates this kind of alignment with the corporate strategy. This is far more powerful than operating based on command and control. Summarizing his philosophy for management, Peter Drucker stated: What the business enterprise needs is a principle of management that will give full scope to individual strength and responsibility and at the same time give common direction of vision and effort, establish team work and harmonize the goals of the individual with the common weal. The only principle that can do this is management by objectives and self-control. It makes the common weal the aim of every manager. It substitutes for control from outside the stricter, more exacting and more effective control from the inside (Drucker, 2006a, pp. 135 136). If this is applied to all organizational members, independent of the level in the organization, and to all organizational units, then organizational goals can be converted into individual or

40 2 The Strategic Alignment Process subunit goals. The concept of management by objectives needs to be applied side by side with the concept of self-control, which was already introduced in Sect. 1.1 as a solution which is a form of second-order control. He described the benefits of self-control in the following words: The greatest advantage of management by objectives is perhaps that it makes it possible for a manger to control his own performance. Self-control means stronger motivation: a desire to do the best rather than just enough to get by (Drucker, 2006a, p. 130). The value adding capabilities of social systems including self-control are also described by Schwaninger (2009), p. 28, as: Self-control: A system s ability to control itself, which includes setting and adjusting its own goals, as well as autonomous adaptation. Self-organization: The autonomous, often spontaneous, formation of relationships, activities and structural patterns. Self-reference: A system s capability to reflect upon itself, and therewith on aspects such as its identity, values, purpose, goals and tasks or activities. Self-transformation: The ability of a system to reorganize and restructure itself. This type of self-control, self-organization, self-reference, and self-transformation relies on knowledge workers on all levels. Organizations managed based on this philosophy should be well prepared to deal with the complexity and uncertainty which characterize these turbulent times. Authoritarian, first-order control oriented companies will be much less prepared. Or as Gary Hamel wrote in his landmark book Leading the Revolution: It is universally apparent that we are living in a world so complex and so uncertain that authoritarian, control-oriented companies are bound to fail. Increasingly, intellectual capital is more valuable than physical capital, and it is employees who are becoming the true capitalists (Hamel, 2002, p. 27). Empowering as well as holding accountable the knowledge workers on all levels also requires that they are provided with all relevant information they need to measure their own performance and contribution to the strategic objectives. This information should be provided via primary communication channels directly to the knowledge worker, not indirectly, and with delay via their superior managers. Information is power, and power should be given to all knowledge workers to manage their respective contribution to the enterprise. Obviously, the superior managers should also have access to primary communication channels; in essence, they are knowledge workers as well, and therefore the same rules apply, creating an information democracy where everyone receives the information needed to perform their job. The benefit of direct communication channels being available for knowledge workers is that managers no longer create unnecessary bottlenecks for the distribution and communication of critical information. Drucker s concept of Management by Objectives sounds fabulous, but as mentioned earlier, many companies have failed to make it work. What they lack is alignment of individual and subunit goals with the strategic objectives and the prerequisite to self-control. Self control relies on the availability of performance

2.2 New Tools and Philosophies for Managers 41 information for knowledge workers at all levels of the organization to create a measurement-managed organization. The study from Harris Interactive (Covey, 2004) had found that two-thirds have no clear understanding what their organization s strategic goal is and how it is measured. About 80% have no clear line of sight between their tasks and their team s and organization s goals. About 90% have no clear, measurable, deadline driven work goals. Kaplan and Norton (2005) found that the strategies of 67% of subunit or departmental plans were not aligned with the corporate strategies and plans. Another study (Kaplan & Norton, 2001) had found that only 51% of senior managers in the United States and 31% in the United Kingdom had their personal goals linked to strategy. Ventana Research (Kugel, 2007) performed a study in 2007 which showed that a majority of organizations did not have enough ongoing feedback about how well they are performing to their objectives. This is alarming information and confirming that the concept of Management by Objectives is not practiced in many organizations. Drucker had already stated that management needs special instruments to make Management by Objectives work. With business intelligence, such an instrument is available now, and it can help to get the concepts of Management by Objectives revitalized. More than 50 years after the concept was invented, it has now evolved to Management by Objectives 2.0 (MBO 2.0 ) by combining the concept of Management by Objectives with an adequate instrument, business intelligence, to make it work in organizations. Executives recognize that they can improve their operations by providing access to business intelligence not only to management. In 2006, the Economist Intelligence Unit surveyed 386 executives and found the following results: BI will be shared among more employees. Business executives want to distribute analytical data to a wider range of employees. These include not just high-level decisionmakers, most of whom already have access to BI data, but also middle management, operations employees and even front-line staff. The desire of our respondents to share BI with more people stems from a belief that workers can do their jobs better if they have the right information to improve operations (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2006, p. 2). While making more information available is useful if the information is needed, business intelligence also includes mechanisms to help knowledge workers avoid drowning in too much data. And business intelligence can also be applied incorrectly. In some organizations, you find departmental data warehouses build on different platforms with different development tools, and not integrated with the enterprise data warehouse. As Adkins (2006) states: Most companies are still unable to get the business intelligence they need; and the intelligence they do get is not delivered quickly enough to be actionable (Adkins, 2006, p. 7). David Axson describes the difficulties in other words: It becomes very difficult to improve decision making if management reporting is incomplete or contains incorrect information, the right people get the right information at the wrong time, the right information is in the hands of the wrong people, the right information is provided at the right time to the right people, but they do not know how to use it effectively (Axson, 2010, p. 158).

42 2 The Strategic Alignment Process Findings of a 2007 global survey of 162 chief information officers in North America and Europe conducted by the consulting firm Accenture (2008a) found that CIOs acknowledge that business intelligence is one of the cornerstones to achieving competitive differentiation. The survey found that 60% of the respondents admitted not using business intelligence for competitive differentiation, yet more than 57% of CIOs wanted to use business intelligence for that purpose. The drivers for this change were indicated by a group of 54% to be customer service/relations improvement, and for 50%, the capability to respond quickly to market situations. They also mentioned the need to move from basic or siloed analytics to enterprisewide analytics. When compared for where they saw themselves at the time and where they wanted to be in their utilization of business intelligence, there was an increase of 233% for North America and a 267% increase in Europe. With these intentions articulated in 2007, the interesting question is if organizations have been upgrading their infrastructures. A study published by IBM (LaValle, 2009) in 2009 confirmed that most organizations recognize the opportunity for analytics. It found that they are still very early in the adoption process. Only 14% of the respondents stated to take advantage of new analytics to leverage information to their advantage. The majority, 66% of respondents, stated to recognize the opportunity and getting started while 20% had not even thought about it. One in three respondents described their organization as frequently making major business decision with incomplete information or information they don t trust. The above-mentioned problems or challenges might be stimulating you to ask yourself the following questions: Is something wrong with our strategy or how we execute it? Is there anything we can change to improve our strategy execution? How complicated is doing business? I felt intrigued to conceptualize a tool that would help to manage the strategy execution process more effectively: The Strategic Alignment Remote Control. 2.2.3 Strategic Alignment Remote Control What is the value of concepts if they cannot be applied? Now that I have introduced the concept of Management by Objectives 2.0, I do not want to leave you just with a new framework for effective strategy execution, but offer a new management tool which you can use right away. In a complex world, all knowledge workers, including management, need to remain in control, and have visibility of all relevant performance indicators with zero latency. Is it not enjoyable to use the remote control for the TV? Whenever you make up your mind about what you like to view, you just click on a button and yes, you get what you want. I transferred this concept to management, which for obvious reasons is slightly more complex. But the idea should be the same. If an executive or manager has an information need, it should just be a click away. Now, is this realistic? How realistic has been the idea from President Kennedy, that Americans

2.2 New Tools and Philosophies for Managers 43 Fig. 2.3 Strategic alignment remote control (#Bernd Heesen/Prescient. Used with permission) should put their feet on the moon? One has to have a vision to work towards in order to get there. With this in mind, the new tool I invented is the Strategic Alignment Remote Control (see Fig. 2.3), which supports the preparation and execution of a strategy. It allows to access all relevant information at all levels of the organization across the globe, allowing the management team to focus their attention on the most relevant problems as well as opportunities. The final objective would be to create a measurement-managed organization. As indicated earlier, these organizations perform above average and are far better prepared to compete in dynamic environments. A status indicator on the Strategic Alignment Remote Control indicates the maturity of an organization in regards to their strategic alignment. The level of strategic alignment is an indication for strategy execution effectiveness. The status of an organization can be inactive, prepared, or active. Organizations which like to improve the effectiveness of their strategy execution can use the Strategic Alignment Remote Control to follow the Strategic Alignment Process. It includes two major process steps with their subordinate tasks: Preparation for strategy execution: Formulate strategy Define key performance indicators to fulfill the information needs of all stakeholders Track key performance indicators Strategy execution: Analyze Decide Act

44 2 The Strategic Alignment Process Organizations can advance step by step. The first step in the process is for the executives to understand the benefit of strategic alignment, and push the power button on the remote control. This switches the status light on with the status indicating inactive (red). The second step is the preparation. It starts with the formulation of the strategy and the definition of measurable strategic goals. This can only be done based on a shared definition and understanding of the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) suitable to measure progress. Following these two tasks, the KPIs need to be tracked with the help of a business intelligence infrastructure. The infrastructure should also enable the communication of relevant facts via different communication channels to the stakeholders, depending upon their information needs. Once these preparational tasks are completed successfully, the status indicator switches to prepared (yellow). There is no benefit and alignment yet. The benefit is only created once the information is utilized to improve the decision making at all levels. This happens during the execution of the strategy. The final step is strategy execution. Now, knowledge workers at all levels of the organization can utilize the Strategic Alignment Remote Control to analyze their own or their organizational unit s performance, plan and act in a way that optimizes their contribution to reaching the strategic goals. They maintain the oversight over their business and can make more insightful decisions based on improved information access. An important element of the step call decide is establishing performance objectives for every individual or organizational unit, which lead to a maximum contribution towards reaching the strategic objectives of the enterprise. Strategic alignment is improved by this cascading of the performance objectives, which requires a dialog across the hierarchy as well as along the value chains, thereby improving the vertical and horizontal alignment within the organization. Given the magnitude of this communication and coordination effort, the business intelligence infrastructure needs to provide adequate communication support and information access for this planning and budgeting process. Continuous monitoring of performance and distribution of critical information to the knowledge workers supports the reflection of adequacy of business initiatives, and fosters continuous and accelerated learning. Once the strategy is executed in this fashion, the status indicator switches to alignment being active (green). Organizations with this status can consider themselves measurement-managed organizations and expect above-average success in reaching their strategic objectives. The next chapters will guide you through this process. Chapters 3 and 4 will present how to perform the relevant tasks in more detail.

http://www.springer.com/978-3-642-19204-3